Toronto Estate Lawyer : Hull & Hull Law Firm : Trust Mediation and Succession Planning : Serving Ontario, Ottawa, Mississauga, Hamilton

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As I am sipping on my coffee this morning, I am thinking to myself, who can commence a will challenge? 

A will challenge can be commenced pursuant to 75.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 75.06(1) is a procedural remedy that permits any person who appears to have a financial interest in an estate to apply for directions or move for directions in another proceeding.   This begs the question, who is considered to have a financial interest in an estate? This issue was addressed in the Ontario Superior Court (Divisional Court) decision of Smith v. Vance.

In Smith, the Deceased died on October 27, 1995, leaving a will dated January 5, 1994 which named the applicants as the estate trustees.   A notice of objection was filed by three individuals who were cousins of the deceased through marriage. The objection was subsequently struck by the Honourable Justice Perras during the motion for directions on the grounds that the objectors did not have a financial interest in the subject-Estate. In this hearing, the objectors appealed this decision.

The objectors asserted their financial interest in the Estate based on their close relationship with and their physical and financial assistance for the deceased. There was also an earlier destroyed will in which the objectors were named beneficiaries. Finally a letter was allegedly written by the deceased wherein she acknowledged that the objector will have an interest in her estate.

The court acknowledged that a financial interest is not defined in the Rules of Civil Procedure. In such cases, words should be taken by its natural meaning. Black's legal dictionary defines financial interest as an interest equated with money or its equivalent. The court held that claimants must do more than simply assert an interest. They must present sufficient evidence of a genuine interest and meet a threshold test to justify inclusion as a party. The interest need not be conclusive evidence at that stage but must be evidence capable of supporting an inference that the claim is one that should be heard. 

If the evidence offered by an objector is capable of supporting an inference that the claim raises a genuine issue, and thus is one that should be heard, the objector is entitled to standing and should be granted permission to be added as a party. The appeal was allowed and the order by the Honourable Justice Perras was set aside.

I hope you had fun reading today's blog. Until tomorrow,

Rick Bickhram

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There is the view by some that issues surrounding the interpretations of Wills can be mind-numbing.  From time to time I tend to enjoy dusting off my book of consolidated estate statutes and reviewing some of the basic tenets of estate law, which makes our area of practice so dynamic.

The issue of a failed gift is a common subject in the context of will interpretations. The Ontario Legislature has considered failed gifts in sections 23 and 31 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

In essence, Section 23 states that unless a contrary intention appears in the subject-will, when a devisee or legatee predeceases the testator, the failed gift falls into the residue of the testator’s estate. 

Section 31 is commonly referred to as the "anti-lapse provision."  Section 31 prevents devises or bequests from failing by virtue of the devisee or legatee predeceasing the testator. In such a scenario, a gift is saved if the devise or bequest was left for a child, grand-child, brother or sister of the testator and the pre-deceased devisee or legatee died leaving a spouse or issue who survived the testator. If these conditions have been met, the devise or bequest will not fall into the residue, however it will take effect as if it had been made directly to the spouse or issue of predeceased devisee or legatee. 

Thank you for reading,

Rick Bickhram

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When an irresistable force meets an immovable object, we appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

In Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, 2008 SCC 44, the force is the Personal Information Protection of Electronic Documents Act ("PIPEDA") and the object is solicitor-client privilege.  Section 12 of PIPEDA grants the Privacy Commissioner express statutory power to compel a person to produce any records that the Privacy Commissioner considers necessary to investigate a complaint “in the same manner and to the same extent as a superior court of record”.  The issue in Blood Tribe was whether this conferred a right of access to documents protected by solicitor-client privilege.  The Court held unanimously that the broad grant did not contain the requisite specific express authority to override privilege.

The Court stated the rule that "general words of a statutory grant of authority to an office holder such as an ombudsperson or a regulator do not confer a right to access solicitor-client documents, even for the limited purpose of determining whether the privilege is properly claimed.  That role is reserved to the courts.  Express words are necessary to permit a regulator or other statutory official to “pierce” the privilege." 

The Court also noted that "while the solicitor-client privilege may have started life as a rule of evidence, it is now unquestionably a rule of substance applicable to all interactions between a client and his or her lawyer when the lawyer is engaged in providing legal advice or otherwise acting as a lawyer rather than as a business counsellor or in some other non-legal capacity."

Speaking of the Supreme Court of Canada, the law you're looking for just might be in the "unreported judgments" section of the Supreme Court's user-friendly website.  How does a Supreme Court decision go unreported?

Have a great day,

Chris Graham

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Checklists are wonderful things when it comes to the practice of law (list makers would argue that that is true in life as well). In today’s busy practice, a checklist can ease the troubled legal mind.

I was looking at several estate planning information checklists earlier this week. It is worthwhile to highlight some issues/items that can be easily overlooked but which a thorough solicitor should ensure is on his/her checklist:

·         If you are acting for both spouses/partners, advise the clients that you cannot act for one at a later date without the other’s knowledge;

·         Is the estate trustee to manage funds for minors and distribute monies to the guardian for care, maintenance and education of minor children. Who is the guardian;

·         If they can be transferred, who gets air mile/loyalty points. What about transferable equity in hunting/fishing lodges or sports clubs;

·         Joint Assets and the presumption of a resulting trust – is there a clear intention of ownership;

·         For foreign property, consider the necessity of executing a separate will or appointment of a local estate trustee;

·         Ensure every life interest is coupled with a remainder interest; and

·         Ensure any charitable organization named as beneficiary is still in existence and properly described.

Have a great weekend and for all those skiers out there, let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In yesterday’s blog I noted that my blogs this week would, at least in part, address preparation for trial in a contested passing. Today’s blog comments on certain aspects of trial preparation (the parties, setting the matter down for trial and documents/productions).

The issue of whether all of the parties who ought to be involved in the passing are involved, and, if so, whether any of the parties who do not have representation need representation, must be considered. In considering who the appropriate parties are, or should be, the following questions might be asked: Are there self-represented parties? Have they been notified of all matters related to the proceeding? Has any party filed a Notice of No Objection to the accounts? Has anyone filed a Statement of Submission of Rights (if so, have they been served by the plaintiff with written notice of the time and place of the trial)? Is a minor involved (Rule 7.03(2), The Office of the Children’s Lawyer)? Is there an adult party who is disabled (Rule 7, The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee)? Is a representation Order necessary (Rule 10).

Regarding the scheduling of the trial, an order of the Court for directions, or otherwise, at any pre-trial stage, or at the pre-trial conference might address same. It may be that the date of the trial, fixed in its length, is to be fixed by the Registrar on a date mutually convenient to the parties. If, on the other hand, the proceeding is to be set down for trial, Rule 48.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the proceeding to be set down for trial after the close of pleadings and when a party is ready for trial. In any case, inquiries should be made with the Court office where the trial is to take place to determine what, if any, forms need to be filed with the Court to confirm that the trial is to proceed.

Regarding the preparation of documents/productions for trial, it is critical that the documents in respect of the proceeding be organized prior to trial. If the documents necessary for the trial are not in counsel’s possession when preparing for trial, for whatever reason, they should be obtained prior to trial. Such documents include, but are not limited to, all pleadings, the estate accounts, certificate of appointment, prior Judgments for passing of accounts, all Orders regarding the passing of accounts, all Notices of Objections (and withdrawals), Statements of Submission of Rights, Consents/Releases of any party, Affidavits of Service and the documents exchanged between the parties as a result of the Rules of Civil Procedure, any agreement of the parties and/or Court Order. 

Also ensure that all issues of privilege regarding the documents are dealt with prior to trial.

Lastly, ensure that you have the originals of your client’s documents unless they are not available. If originals are not available, know why they are not available.  

Thanks for reading.

Craig

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 In Kaplun v. Kaplun, Brown J. of the Ontario S.C.J. reminded all counsel of certain basic expectations that a court has of counsel who appear in Motions Court:

1.      Be on time and ready to start at 10:00 a.m. Tardiness displays a lack of respect for the court, its staff, and fellow counsel;

2.      Counsel should always be courteous and civil to opposing counsel.

3.      Ill feelings that may exist between clients, particularly during litigation, should not influence counsel in their conduct and demeanour towards opposing counsel.

4.      When scheduling a motion, counsel should consult the responding side before setting a date.

5.      Requests for an adjournment should be communicated to opposing counsel well in advance of the hearing date. The not uncommon practice of adjournment by ambush is unacceptable;

6.      Counsel should follow the two basic rules of courtroom etiquette:

(a)   When one counsel is standing to make submissions, the other should sit down. Success in Motions Court does not depend on the last person standing; and

(b)   Avoid "Jack-in-the-box" advocacy. Standing up to interject repeatedly during opposing counsel's oral argument on a motion is rude and wastes time. Counsel should deal with any disputed matter and respond in a reply argument.   

7.      Finally, Brown J. states that for Motions Court to work efficiently and fairly, the court depends upon counsel observing the three “Cs”: courtesy, civility and co-operation.

Thank you for reading.

Justin